The Impact of Beta Blockers on Survival in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Beta adrenergic signaling has been implicated in cancer progression, leading to interest in repurposing beta blockers (BBs) as adjunctive anti-cancer agents. However, clinical findings are inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the association between BB use and survival outcomes in cancer patients. Methods: A systematic search of OVID Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was conducted through 13 September 2023, for studies comparing survival outcomes in solid tumor patients using BBs versus non-users. Eligible studies reported hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), or cancer-specific survival (CSS). Perioperative studies and those without BB-specific HRs were excluded. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed in duplicate using ROBINS-I. A random-effects model was used, with heterogeneity assessed by the I2 statistic. Results: Seventy-nine studies (492,381 patients) met the inclusion criteria; 2.5% were prospective. The most frequently studied cancers were breast (n = 33), ovarian (n = 30), and colorectal (n = 28). BB use was associated with improved PFS (HR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.66–0.92, I2 = 79.8%), with significance maintained after excluding high-bias studies (HR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.61–0.91, I2 = 36.6%). No significant associations were observed for OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.94–1.04, I2 = 84.9%) or CSS (HR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91–1.00, I2 = 77.4%). Conclusions: BB use may be associated with longer PFS in cancer patients, but findings are limited by study design and heterogeneity; high-quality prospective studies are needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".